My colleague Andrew Coyne recently renewed his call for political advertising reform — specifically an end to anything even remotely resembling a public subsidy for it, which I could not possibly support more; and a requirement that party leaders voice their own ads, which somewhat offends my free-speech Spidey senses. But as the Conservatives prepare to roll out some Justin Trudeau attack-mailers, at taxpayer expense, featuring an outrageously misleading quotation, I keep coming back to a perplexing question: We wouldn’t stand for the level of dishonesty and deception we routinely see in political advertising if it came from someone selling pickup trucks, hamburgers, underwear or shampoo. So why the hell do we put up with it from people trying to sell us the people who will run the country?

I have heard the justifications for the exemption of political advertising from Advertising Standards Canada standards any number of times, and at no time have they ever made much sense to me.

It’s impossible to evaluate the truthiness of an ad during an election campaign. So? Do it afterwards and report back. Political advertising isn’t just a campaign phenomenon anymore anyway. Not hardly.

Voters understand and discount hyperbole. That doesn’t seem to be what the parties think, or else they wouldn’t constantly rub hyperbole in our faces.

We need unfettered dialogue and debate in politics. Amen, assuming equal right of rebuttal. But then why not afford people selling vastly less important products the same leeway? I’m reminded of an amusing scenario that Allan Gregg recently imagined: Burger King accusing McDonald’s of using beef rife with botulism, and McDonald’s firing back by claiming that Burger King’s product is swimming in E. coli. And just wait until Wendy’s gets in on the act! Why should politicians be afforded this absurd slanderous luxury if burger joints aren’t?

I certainly don’t want some third party poring over every single advertisement in search of exaggeration, hyperbole or torque. Libel laws are there to be used, should parties choose. But if we are, as it seems, a country that values truth in advertising, then I struggle to see why we should shrug at an ad that presents, for example, Justin Trudeau’s interpretation of his father’s views on Quebecers as if it were his own opinion, but recoil at a similar sleight of hand if it was used to sell, say, processed cheese.

I absolutely agree with Coyne: At a minimum, no more public money for this garbage. Not another dime. No subsidies, no tax breaks for donations, no nothing. Canadian voters subsidizing our political parties as they currently operate is roughly the equivalent of a city’s public works department subsidizing graffiti artists. But much as it annoys me, much as I wish it were otherwise, Canada is a country that loves regulating speech. Why are we letting politicians off the hook?